Man charged over US mid-term elections '200lb bomb plot'

Well, I guess it is time for the crazies to make their appearances.....

Mr Rosenfeld - who waived his right to remain silent - was charged with two counts of manufacturing and transporting explosives on Wednesday, the
prosecutors say.
"Had he been successful, Rosenfeld's alleged plot could have claimed the lives of innocent bystanders and caused untold destruction," said
Assistant Director-in-Charge William Sweeney of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
"Fortunately, his plans were thwarted by the quick action of a concerned citizen and the diligent work of a host of our law enforcement partners and
the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force," he added.

He could be jailed for up to 20 years......
Should get life IMHO.

They say he wanted to draw attention to his belief in "sortition" - a political theory that advocates the random selection of government
officials.

In governance, sortition is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates. Sortition ensured all
competent and interested parties had an equal chance of holding public office.

Each table discusses proposals, with a facilitator making sure no one dominates and everyone gets his or her say, and a note-taker typing comments and
decisions into a computer. A "theme team" can see what every table is discussing and summarises the output, which is then presented to the entire
assembly, who have individual voting keypads to prioritise results. In this way the assembly can come to large group decisions.

Stratified random sampling enures that participants accurately reflect the community they are drawn from, unlike open meetings where often only
socially privileged or more vocal people attend and dominate discussions. Stratified random sampling ensures that half the participants are women and
half men, with proportional representation for the young and old, and across all geographical areas and educational levels.

If this assembly formed a legislative parliament, then every 6 months or year a part of the assembly (say, one quarter) would be replaced with people
randomly selected from the electoral roll, ensuring the assembly remained representative of the general populace. These representatives would be paid
as politicians are paid now, and would serve one single term in office of two-four years.

Man not good at all this is reaching criticality Jesus people we are all Americans at the end of the day no matter how effed you think the other sides
politics might be no one deserves to be harmed over them.😔😣

That's a view that belongs to a period prior to the election as leader, of a man who favours the every man for himself approach, and the total
demolition of decorum and standards of etiquette.

Those who voted Trump, created a scenario in which the political correctness that kept people from thinking "This talking thing is not working any
more, better act instead", is now frowned upon. This is the inevitable result.

Those who voted Trump, created a scenario in which the political correctness that kept people from thinking "This talking thing is not working any
more, better act instead", is now frowned upon. This is the inevitable result.

He is a symptom of the US political climate, not the cause.

Anyone who wants to put all the negative blame on Trump for America's woes washes the hands of previous administratons, and the wrongdoings they did
to our nation.

Look here. Prior administrations messed up financially, morally, and technically on lots of occasions. But none of them, not a one, not a single one,
contributed to the dissolution of basic respect. No American President in living memory, has run on the notion that being rude to people, denying
people their rights, taking steps backwards in terms of equality and decency towards ones common man, is a good idea.

Trump and his hangers on, those who support him materially, those who supported him with their votes, those who support him as his administration,
are no longer and will never again be, part of a polite, even tempered debate space, or indeed a nation which values the notions of decorum and good
conduct. They advocated and won for themselves, a safe space to be cretins in, and the thing will come home to roost eventually. Its a matter of time
before the death of political correctness in the backwater they are creating, will come to bite them in the arse, and when they complain, they will
have not a leg to stand on.

They have GUARANTEED that violence and force will replace the political correctness and politeness that used to be the norm, by making polite
conversation impossible and normalising total disrespect.

Look here. Prior administrations messed up financially, morally, and technically on lots of occasions. But none of them, not a one, not a single
one, contributed to the dissolution of basic respect.

Johnson started the major initiative in Vietnam, which showed what we think of other nations adopting a system of governing we don't support, and the
willingness to sacrifice our young for the mission of stopping that.

Nixon was an alleged racist and anti-Semite according to a WaPo article and tapes supporting it.

Reagan started the war on drugs, changing the language on how we plan to address policy regarding our own people, a war. This has helped lay the
foundation for the prison industrial complex. He also ended the good neighbor policy in South America.

Obama didn't rewrite the rules, but he weaponized existing ones to go after whistleblowers, and the journalists who tried to conceal their identity.
He ramped up the campaign of indiscriminate drone strikes that many analysts believe help fuel the insurgency to our missions abroad.

I purposefully used these examples to try and bridge gaps in time, and use both sides of the isle to prove a point.

His policy is nothing new. Some may see it as extreme versions of other ways it was used in the passed, and in many cases they are right.

So your saying that just because he doesn't pander and BS he is the worse? I'm not a Trump supporter but that is a position of emotion.

That's why we're here, people vote for the best panderer, and if they talk their way through lying and reversing their platform, so be it, as long as
we look good.

Trump will be gone soon, and you'll see the corporate funded partisan hacks you're used to. Everyone will be relieved to have the establishment that
makes us feel cozy and good because they speak like Obama while they conduct their war escapades.

People are responsible for their own behavior. Just because some people think Trump is "mean" it does not follow that they get to riot and exercise
mob rule. And if you want to talk about who is being rude and encouraging disrespect...

Or how about Hillary? She says people can't be civil to Trump supporters:

But all that means nothing because Trump is mean? Really?

I know what you're doing... you're spouting the same old vitriol you always do, in hopes of getting a few folks upset and getting some yucks. It's
probably all funny to you. But we have a real issue here, with Sarah Sanders and Ted Cruz being chased out of restaurants, rioters throwing their
temper fits across the country and trying to call it "protesting," rowdy mobs interfering with government operations, evidence of illegal spying by
the US government under Democratic rule, Rand Paul viciously beaten in his front yard, Steve Scalise still having trouble walking after being shot for
being a Republican,
vehicles being torched because they have Trump stickers, the overt denial of due process to men because they're male, and
a host of other examples of increasing violence and criminality on the part of the DNC and it's supporters too numerous to mention.

So laugh it up. Your assertion is beyond despicable, beyond deplorable, and beyond any semblance of civilized demeanor, your impressive vocabulary
notwithstanding. I know you don't care, but I am still going to call you out for your inhumanity.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.